Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 11, 2013, the Defendant damaged the property by harming “Ecafeteria” operated by the victim D, the victim D in the Northern-si, Ma-si, Ma-si, and destroying the property equivalent to the upper amount by harming the lubation, brucing the lubation, brucation, etc. on the lubing part of the lub, thereby damaging the property.

2. In order to investigate the Defendant, the Korea Coast Guard G police box, who received a report of the obstruction of performance of official duties, was aboard the seat after the police patrol officer No. 59Do2516, to accompany the Defendant to the G police box.

On February 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00, at the time of port, obstructed legitimate performance of official duties by considering the following head of the slopeH who is driving with his hand floor, within the police 112 patrols in front of the 112 patrols of the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph damage to property and report on investigation (such as inside the patrol vehicle);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted to the effect that the defendant did not assault the defendant with circumstantial slopeH, and that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

According to the legitimate evidence submitted by the prosecution, the defendant committed an assault against slope H.

In addition, according to each of the above evidences, although the defendant was found to have drinking at the time of the above crime, he/she is deemed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions.